Background: With the recent advent of percutaneous valve therapy, an increased need for the evaluation of outcomes after open aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients is warranted. This study compares the short- and long-term survival outcomes of octogenarians after AVR with younger age groups in the modern surgical era.
Methods: A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent isolated, primary AVR from 1996 to 2006 at the Emory Healthcare Hospitals. Five-hundred fifteen patients were divided into three age groups: 60 to 69 (n = 206), 70 to 79 (n = 221), and 80 to 89 years of age (n = 88). Outcomes were compared among the age groups using logistic regression and analysis of variance techniques. Long-term survival between age groups was compared using the Cox proportional hazards model. Kaplan-Meier plots were used to determine survival rates.
Results: The groups were similar with respect to in-hospital mortality (p = 0.66) and hospital length of stay (p = 0.08). Preoperative predictors of in-hospital mortality included stroke (odds ratio [OR] 5.36), chronic lung disease (OR 4.51), and renal failure (OR 1.39). As expected, age significantly impacted long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06). Other predictors of long-term survival included stroke (HR 2.15), current smoker (HR 2.03), diabetes (HR 1.53), and renal failure (HR 1.4). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of median survival for octogenarians was 7.4 years.
Conclusions: In the modern era, octogenarians have acceptable short- and long-term results after open AVR. Comparisons of less invasive techniques for AVR should rely on outcomes based in the modern era and decisions regarding surgical intervention in patients requiring AVR should not be based on age alone.